tv [untitled] January 14, 2014 4:00pm-4:31pm PST
categorical exemption was filed the lawsuit was filed challenging the 2009 letter of determination. board of appeals did identify the letter to convert the non-conforming use to conforming use and intensify that use. in 2011 the same superior judge invalidated that letter of determines. however the city and we an appealed that to the court of appeals and in april in last year, april 2013, the california code of appeals reversed the superior court judgment and the 2009 letter upheld in its entirety. for that reason, the zoning administration is an appropriate means to the project is final and not
subject to further legal challenge. not to report the outcome of that allegation. even if it did analyze in different means that project could have been approved that is not ground for objecting the eir. that is because the eir already analyzed the possibility. on section 2a. approval for the non-special use district to authorize the intensification of a largest affordable non-conforming use. the masonic temple prevail at the appeal at the verdict of mandate. less the eir already did cover the possibility that an amendment special use district would be necessary however we did prevail at the court of appeal and the final
eir actively approved that. the physical impacts on the environment of a project. not the form of project's approval. the ceqa guidelines to find a project analyzed in the eir in the activity being proposed not the approvals. therefore even if the appellants are correct, they would have no bearing on the adequacy of the ei r. let me turn to the section of the 182 argument which applies citywide is not available in the knob hill special use district. we agree with the appellants that the provision of a special use district supercede general code planning commission provision when there is a conflict with any other code provision. appellants can point to no conflict between section 182 and section 238 which is the knob hill ordinance. whether they assume that because section 238 is
silent on how non-conforming use, there is a conflict and which it has been superceded. the clear language to the planning code to the contrary. the appellants argument because it's located in the special use district in applying the 4th district does not apply. appellants cannot apply nor case authority to support their novel proposition. the planning code clearly addresses the interaction of the special use districts in the planning code section 235 which authorizes a special use district concludes with the statement and any special use districts, the provisions of the applicable underlying use district shall prevail except as specifically provided in the ordinance. in this case, the knob hill special use district is silent in how non-conforming use is treated. therefore the under lining zone prevails. by
upholding the eir is not setting a precedent to change the way special use district are used in the city. the code remains in existence and states unless there is a specific inconsistency between the sudden ordinance and the under lining zoning, the under lining zoning controls. it's nothing new, it's always been in the code. from an interpretation from the code that was issued several years ago. "special use district's are intended to modify the provisions of the under lining zoning to the extent and only as stated in the provision" therefore the under lining zoning prevails. earlier these same arguments were made in a superior court in the judicial challenge of the 2009 of determination. once the court of appeal upheld the appeal, that matter was
settled, the 2009 letter of determination was upheld in its entirety. on the environmental effects on the renovation project, this eir is comprehensive and thorough. it's 2 inches thick of single space text and covers every environmental issue imaginable in the neighborhood. one of the painstaking detail on traffic transit loading and pedestrian and bicyclist and noise and recreation and public resources, air quality, light and air. appellants presented no evidence that the physical impacts were not adequately analyzed. the planning department to the board on january 6th, january 3rd go into detail of the appellants arguments. the final eir is complete and objective. on behalf of live nation we request the board uphold and
allow the renovations that are needed to modernize. chiu president david chiu: thank you, any questions to the project sponsor. seeing none, let's hear from the members of the public that support the sponsor. please lineup. >> hello, david elliot louis representing myself as a resident aware of this project for some time. and someone who i think i can see from both sides. i urge you to reject the appeal and approve the project. i see this difference between age group, those who want quiet and those who want a nightlife and it's also an issue of alcohol. i agree that can be a problem. i do believe that
neighbors have a right to quieten enjoyment of their neighborhood but not at the expense of fun, not at the expense of decreasing nightlife. we can use a little more life in that neighborhood at night. the streets are really dead quiet and deserted. i would like to see that place come alive. i hope you will approve it. i think there is enough regulations to make sure it will run right. that's all. i hope you approve this project. thank you. president david chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> sf gov if we can get attention on the projector. >> i'm the president of the knob hill coalition. thank you very much. very shortly we are here in support of the eir and
we would like to ask the board of supervisors to deny the appeal. we have been working on this project since 2009. i would like to just remind the board of the various milestones. i'm going to try to start here very quickly. but there were no controls on the operation from 1958 from 2009. president david chiu: pull the microphone a little closer. >> in 2010, we did not agree with the board of supervisors when the number of shows were approved at 85 and 8 concession stands. the project sponsor asked for 11. over 95 shows we litigated. we were the lead manager for the support and had the support from all the neighborhood associations. we went to court twice, we won twice. i would like to move to the little red box at the end which is really where we came
out when the eir was published. we started negotiating a settlement agreement at the end of 2011. i'm happy to say that after two appeals to the board and after many years of litigation and negotiation, we did come to a settlement agreement, and it is something that was signed off by the entire neighborhood over 3,000 residents. it's a major win for the entire community and i believe it's something we should all support wholeheartedly and we hope you deny this appeal. thank you very much. i would like to also include this into record, please. >> good afternoon, my name is mary. i'm here on behalf of the
knob hill association. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment. the knob hill association is the oldest and one of the largest associations in san francisco and entirely volunteer organization. i'm a member of the board and chair of the committee. we have many members in our membership. our members reside and own properties in the neighborhood in particular on california and many of our members own property across the street from the masonic. the knob hill association supports the project. we are urge the board of supervisors to approve the project and deny. at that
time we had a concern that the nature of events at the masonic would put too much strain on the neighborhood and the traffic would have a negative effect on the park. the association and the masonic settled the suit in 2013 agreeing on a number of things including the number of events and you heard greg say. the opening and closing of times, controls of service of beverage and support for maintenance at the park. the conditions at the planning department and board of supervisors have placed on the permit are consistent with our settlement agreement. we also find that the masonic and live nation have been very cooperative to work with. we look forward to working with them in the future for the benefit of the neighborhood and the city of san francisco. thank you for your time. i do have a statement for the record.
>> i'm a business owner of multiple businesses and in favor of live nation moving into the masonic auditorium. i'm in agreement with the knob hill coalition and also a member of the board of directors of the knob hill association. i find it very favorable. thank you very much. chiu final speaker? >> thank you president chiu and members of the board. my name is stanley. i'm here to speak as a neighborhood resident of knob hill. i have lived here for 15 years. i live next door
to the masonic condominium association where the wall is 18 inches from the closest wall to the masonic. i want to report to you that among people that live that close to the masonic support for this agreement is very very broad. i also work with the knob hill coalition of which i was an officer in the knob hill association which i'm also an officer and i want to assure you that support for this project throughout the neighborhood pursuant to the terms of our settlement agreement is very broad. knob hill masonic has worked very closely with residued in our building. right next door, the nearby buildings, residents on pine street and including such items as parking and traffic and large number of patrons and large number of events and we believe our agreement is fair and they satisfy the interest of the city and as well as the
neighborhood. thank you very much. president david chiu: thank you, any other members of the public wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? at this time, why don't we hear for a final rebuttal of up to 3 minutes for mr. wallace representing the appellants. >> thank you mr. president for your time and attention. this you to the speakers who all did a very nice job and happy to see that we all talked to each other with the politeness that we deserve. couple things real fast, supervisor chiu you asked what seemed like you thought was a small increase of patrons. we heard the number of events is going from 230 to 315 which is probably 30 percent
increase not just 4 percent increase when it's just the patrons we are talking about earlier. steve vettel brought up the issue that this has already been litigated and decided. we take a very very different view of that. the appellate decision that was been described in our estimation clearly states that the issue of whether 182 is right or wrong has not been decided. in fact, what happened in the 2009 lod letter of determination, he said, mr. bad ner said, 182 maybe an appropriate response. the san francisco superior court judge, judge goldsmiths in his decision on that question said the zoning administrator made a finding and that finding was wrong. the court of appeals and the lawyers on the board should
look at this exhibit 6 to my supplemental. the appellate judge says there was no finding that the trial could made because mr. bad mer made no such change and it was sent back because they made no other determinations whatsoever. there is a very fundamental disagreement about what the appellate have decided. i would certainly ask that you take a close look at that. steve vettel says we didn't approve the negative. the knob hills says there is four things that you can do by conditional use. you can do the others. you can use 182 and bring the polk street into the knob hill special use district. you can
never prove a negative. the intent was there would be four kinds of conditional use appropriate on these knob hill special use district. hotels, clubs shall bars and restaurants and ancillary uses. it doesn't say by the way, other businesses prohibited or anything else prohibited because of the four conditions allowed is the extent of the knob hill special use district. president david chiu: thank you, colleagues, any questions to mr. wallace or any of the parties? okay. seeing none at this time this hearing has been held and is closed. >> president chiu?
president david chiu: thank you, colleagues, i want to take a moment to thank all the parties to today's presentation. what i want to do is briefly talk about the history of how we've gotten here. this has been a long 6-year history as was described in the first appeal here. it was in the board in 2010 who were serving at that time and dozens of conditions laid on at that time but there was not a -- issue. a lawsuit was settled last year. i want to reiterate a couple elements of that lawsuit. the number of caps on live events which is really the issue that the neighbors and the neighborhood really cared about was dropped from the project sponsors initial request of 95 events a year to 54 events about once a week. initially there were 11 concession stands requested the
final settlement involved significant controls and alcohol consumption and only 5 concession stands another 20-year requirement on notification as well as other benefits to assist the surrounding areas with regards to the events that might be happening. i want to also reiterate that as was mentioned earlier for the conditional use appeal there's not a single proper property owner within 300 feet which is the standard for someone who could bring the appeal that signed off on an appeal which is why we are not hearing that today. for the first time the appeal in front of us the neighborhood organizations that represents hundreds of constituents in my district and the lion share of the neighborhood for the first time they are on the same side as the project sponsor. the question we have in front of us as you know colleagues is the 2-inch environmental impact report that we have in front of
us is it adequate, accurate and sufficient. from my perspective, i do think the planning department did a job in ensuring the adequacy and sufficiently of the eir and with that i would like to make a motion that we affirm the final impact report and pass item 11 and table items 12 and 13. >> thank you. madam clerk. do we need a roll call on this? >> chair, mar, we would need a second on that. >> seconded by supervisor farrell and a roll call vote. can we take this item same house same call? thank you. the item 11 passes and we've tabled items 12 and 13. president david chiu: thank
you, just for clarity sake, we have affirmed the adoption of this item. colleagues let's go to general public comment. >> at this time the public may comment for up to 2 minutes within items of the jurisdiction of the board including policy discussion between the mayor and the board. public comment is not allowed on items subjected to public comment by the board committee. please direct your remarks to the board as a whole. speakers using translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify and if you would like a document to be displayed on the overhead projector please clearly state to sfgtv and remove the document for the live coverage of the meeting. president david chiu: let's hear from our first speaker.
>> members of the board of supervisors, ray heart, san francisco open government. i think you notice that i'm being very careful about how i approach the microphone because the constitution doesn't respect this chamber. i would like to address the board of supervisors the imperial presidency of david chiu. because i was forced out of this chamber. mr. chiu did it with this statement. "i don't think we'll allow public comment from the next speaker." i was the next speaker. i had been called. i was approaching the microphone and i began my comment with 1 word and at that point i was attacked. there is no other call. it was a directed attack by your board
president directing the officers to lay their hands-on me and remove me from this chamber in violation of the brown act, sunshine ordinance and the constitution and the united states constitution. very frankly members of the board who don't want to look me in the eye and doing everything but that, the reason for the constitution stshl -- especially the 1st amendment exist is to protect me from people like him who think they can use a pretext to strip you of your rights. when he uses we, i would like to ask is there any members of this board of supervisors who really feel your chamber rule allows any member to be stripped of their 1st amendment rights. anyone want to stand up to support your president. if not don't be
surprised if we. i can strip you of your rights if i don't like what you say. president david chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, president chiu and supervisors. wouldn't you love some city to love. wouldn't you need some city to love. wouldn't you love some city to love. you better find some city to love. because your city or city i say might look like his. but in your mind you don't know where it is. wouldn't you love some city to love. wouldn't you need some city to love? you better find some city to love. i wanted to
also say stick with the city for a thousand years. i just want to wish you a happy new year. golden years. city golden years. i don't say that life is taking you no where. i know you are going to make it there. golden years. stick with the city for a thousand years. nothing is going to stop you in these city golden years. golden years. happy golden new year to you too. president david chiu: next speaker.
>> greetings supervisors again. david elliot louis. this comment is about mental health for after hours mental health services. when a mental health crisis happens, it can happen at any time. right now the city has little support for mental health crisis. we have a hotline and police coming out in intervention training. that's an over kill. that's a hammer approach when we need a softer approach. what i'm inspired by is the role of the san francisco midnight ministry. it's a faith based group. they provide counseling. not necessarily pushing religion. they provide it for
people. i think the department of public health can do something similar. we used to have a mobile outreach. that has been cut back. i would like to see that we started. i'm hoping to get support from the board of supervisors. if we need some kinds of legislation or pressure in the department of public health to do thiscious , to fund this kind of program. i'm not talking about homeless out in the streets. i'm talking about in people's homes wherever they are having a mental health crisis. that's my personal legislative agenda in terms of what i will be advocating for your board and for the department of public health and community behavioral health services at 1380 howard. you will be hearing more about this from me. this is my introduction of it. thank you for your time. president david chiu: next
speaker. >> mr. president, members of the cabal. my name is christopher call -- i raise my attention tonight american two party system. i hate the republican party because of the on going success of nixon's southern strike that of disgruntled slaveers continue to dominate our general detriment and i dispies the democrats. the death of millions some of whom were my friends and i dispies the
democrats. i hate the republican party for it's anti-government lies. if they actually believed that no government is better than -- any government. they would go to somalia because there is no government there. would we see mr. mcconnell in mog dishu. i doubt it. i offer balance, social balance and working balance and working majority in the us house of representatives. thank you. president david chiu: thanks, next speaker. >> good afternoon board of supervisors my name is rob hammond. i'm with the program of the earth and environmental group in washington dc and
berkeley in district seven against fracturing e -- fracking which is a new coalition in california committed to ban fracking in california. i'm here to introduce a resolution that will be taking up after public comment on a halt on fracking. i'm looking forward to your discussion. this morning there were over 11,000 public comments. what is in congress are completely inadequate and only a ban on fracking is going to help save the water in california. as you know we are experiencing an intense drought and we need to keep a reserve on the ground. that's why your